The Tribe, St Andrews Student Magazine

By Katie Marston
Monday 28th September 2009

Dan Brown vs. Heller; trash vs. class? Maybe. Which should I read; the one with or without literary value?  Or do they both have literary value?  David Cameron would, apparently, opt for trash because it is ‘easy’, so why am I so torn?  Possibly it has something to do with underlying snobbism towards “trash”; it is no more than bubblegum for the minds of the masses. Superficially the difference between “trash” and classics is that classics will be reread and republished for years to come, trashy novels do not tend to have second editions despite massive initial sales.  However, this should not prevent us being open to the possibility of literary value. The original Mills & Boon novel, Arrows from the Dark by Sophie Cole, received critical acclaim when published.  Since then Mills & Boon has become synonymous with trash and shunned by critics and academics – it is doubtful that Arrows from the Dark will be featuring on any book lists for English Freshers this September.  Mills & Boon was at the forefront of the paperback revolution which popularised literature.  However, the scale of sales of “trash” (10 million Mills & Boon books sold per year) must not prevent the literature being judged on its merits or we will miss the diamonds in the rough. Had Van Gogh mass produced postcards of Sunflower the work itself would have had no less value as art but it is unlikely to have received the same response.   Should popularity rule out entry into the coveted literary canon?  Scared by the commercial success of popular fiction critics instinctively label it as “trash”, but literary value CAN be measured by commercial success. Dickens was extremely popular when his work was first published, but his novels are classics, and once Stephen King received positive reviews in high brow circles his popularity was less concerning to his critics. In addition to rare diamonds, the genre has overall literary value.  The avalanche of what may well be mostly rubbish often means we cannot see the wood for the trees.  To Kill a Mockingbird is a classic as much for its social comment and poignancy as Harper Lee’s skill.  The feminist movement was, and is, intertwined with “trash”; its popularity, the increasing number of female writers and related topics chart the changing roles, rights and readership represented by women.  Until recently the canon of English literature was written and ruled by men – the lasting impact on contemporary views of women writers today and the significance of women writing and reading on such a scale cannot be dismissed. The common categorisation of female writers as writers of “trash” has much to do with their education.  Until the mid 20th Century female writers were less educated than their male counterparts, which is why rare successes like Austen and Elliot are so remarkable.  The idea of a male dominated canon is now outdated, but literature like society does not change overnight.  It has taken years for the playing field to begin to level out. Most writers of trash are women and most subject areas are of interest primarily to women.  This is not a fault but instead something which adds to the literary value of the entire genre.  Are ‘masculine’ subjects more serious and therefore more valuable than ‘feminine’ subjects?  The very existence of “trash” proves the literary value of the genre as it reflects back the type of society that dismisses certain genders and subjects so easily. The books may not have Michelin Stars, but they are still food for thought. We cannot just throw out trashy literature.  Books such as Lady Chatterley’s Lover were originally “trash” but are now classics; it is far too blasé to whitewash an entire genre by pigeon holing literature according to stereotypes and the subjective value judgements of critics.  But what about books which really ARE trash? Font size infinity, predictable plot lines, dimensionless characters... ? I believe that these books DO have value because they hold up a mirror to the society they were written in. It is worth remembering the point of literature; enjoyment.  Escapism is as valid a literary quality as any.  Whilst avoiding books from the literary gutter we must not sway too far the other way.  Woolf and Orwell occasionally did launch themselves too much into political polemics.   There is no point being technically brilliant but entirely missing the point of literature.  Any piece that has the power to transport momentarily away from the monotony of everyday life has literary value.  Perhaps Cameron has a point, however poor a sound bite it was.